8/13/2009 @ 2:18PM

David Cameron Vs. Gordon Brown

A lot has been made in these parts about David Cameron, the youthful British Opposition leader appearing to be a latter-day version of John F. Kennedy. The similarities are certainly there–both attractive, highly privileged individuals who went to elite educational institutions, with charming young families. Another cross-cultural similarity is that David Cameron is related to the Anglo-American Astor family while Kennedy’s sister was married to the heir of the Duke of Devonshire. On a more sober note too, each suffered from the sudden death of one of their children.

But the real link between them is that in both cases they represented a new generation for their party or country, challenging the existing establishment, whether it was the stiflingly conventional Republican America or the decidedly old and tired “New” Labour Britain. In both cases, their attributes also laid them open to the accusation that they were too young and untried for the burdens of power. Admittedly, Cameron’s looks and wealth are not on a par with JFK’s, nor has anyone ever suggested that his wife Samantha is quite as stunning as Jackie … but you get the picture.

What has not yet been explored are the rather more intriguing similarities between their two opponents–Richard Nixon and Gordon Brown–and it does not make comfortable reading for the British Prime Minister.

Vice President Richard Nixon had been No. 2 for eight years under President Eisenhower in the ’50s and also had many frustrations at being patronized and ignored by the man at the top. Gordon Brown played second fiddle to Tony Blair for even longer–he had an entire decade as Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Finance Minister. There was certainly no love between these two modernizers of the Labour Party, with Brown bearing an eternal grudge at the effortless way Blair dealt with the party and the public.

Brown, like Nixon, was always seen as the inevitable candidate to succeed his leader, though in Brown’s case he sulked and plotted virtually from the day he was appointed chancellor. Nixon and Brown both came from the (lower) middle class and were state-educated. They also have an eerily similar contempt for the urban elite. But where this game becomes interesting is when you look a bit deeper into the political DNA of Brown and Nixon, which is remarkably congruent despite their representing political opposites–the left in Brown’s case and the right in Nixon’s.

Both are seen as brilliant strategists while being seriously light on the people side of politics–”all substance but no style.” Nixon and Brown only appear happy when huddled together with their strategists (men only) plotting against political opponents, real or imagined. Brown has not relied on dirty tricks to the extent Nixon did, but several of his aides have had to resign because of their propensity to mount scurrilous attacks on their political opponents.

More telling are the signs of awkwardness both show when performing publicly–the strange laughs or flashed grins plus those out-of-sync body grimaces. They are also both accused of being solitary workaholics, over-secretive and bearing grudges far beyond the sell-by dates.

Both are also keen to emphasize how they are humble outsiders compared with their relaxed, urbane, elite opponents. When Nixon finally made it to the White House in 1969, eight years after his defeat by Kennedy, he wrote a memo to himself stating “I have decided my major role is moral leadership”–something that Brown was also keen to promote at the last Labour Party conference and throughout his political career.

Brown, the son of a vicar, is so obsessed with being seen as upright and beyond reproach that he is actually devoting a week of his summer holiday to doing charity work in his constituency. This is in contrast to David Cameron, who confessed that the first thing he does on holiday is to sit down on the beach and read “trashy novels.” I think most voters will at least admire this admission for its honesty, whereas with Brown, they must think, Why can’t he just relax and forget about working at being earnest and high-minded for once?

Compared with Cameron or Kennedy, neither Nixon nor Brown look as if they have any life beyond politics. We have heard that Gordon Brown has to be reminded when it is time to eat because of his indifference to such mundane matters. Let us hope that he has more interest in what is on his plate than Nixon, whose usual five-minute solo lunch in the White House was cottage cheese with a canned pineapple ring. Again, in contrast, both Cameron and Kennedy are known for their pleasure and ease with social life, although there is no suggestion that Cameron has Kennedy’s sexual appetites or that Brown is capable of masterminding a Watergate scandal.

However, Brown is seen as a solitary figure like Nixon, with unhealthy signs of control-freakery and keeping himself cocooned with a small number of loyalists. By contrast, both Kennedy and Cameron have almost made a fetish out of calling on a wide spectrum of advisers from all over the political spectrum. JFK made a big thing about calling on the “best and the brightest” regardless of who they voted for, and Cameron has even called for non-Conservatives to put themselves forward as candidates in the next election. This was a smart move because the British public has grown weary of the existing “professional” politicians from all parties in the wake of the disastrous parliamentary expenses scandal.

Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy vs. Nixon presidential debates. Some believe that this event–not the discovery of electricity of the invention of the internal combustion engine–heralded the real beginning of the modern era. I know what they mean–for the first time, tens of millions of people could witness a live debate between the two contenders for the most powerful position on the planet–the presidency of the United States of America.

It was the beginning of the media age, where a person’s image, rather than just his beliefs, was the paramount factor in creating or swaying support. (What is overlooked, though, is that Nixon won far more approval from radio listeners than those who watched the TV debates). America had to wait another 16 years before both presidential candidates agreed to debate live on TV–Nixon certainly wasn’t going to risk all for such an event in his next two presidential elections. Such spectacles have yet to occur in British politics. In the last British election, Tony Blair did not possess the political courage to go head-to-head with the Opposition leader in televised debates, despite being far ahead in the polls.

Recently, Lord Mandelson, the slightly sinister former Brown enemy who is now de facto deputy prime minister, leaked that Brown would welcome a TV debate with Cameron. This is fantasy–there is no way it will happen. Just remember, we are talking about a prime minister who has refused all attempts to even appear in the same studio as Jeremy Paxman, BBC TV’s most renowned and formidable interviewer.

But we shouldn’t really blame Brown; after all, it was the image of JFK as the youthful, charismatic underdog in those 1960 presidential TV debates that destroyed the chances of the awkward, sweating, five o’clock shadow-clad Nixon. And that is precisely how Brown appears on TV too, regardless of how much work goes into crafting him as the caring, compassionate, experienced leader.

This is a tragedy of Brown’s own creation–he has always been a ruthless, single-minded politician who takes no prisoners. Now, after focusing all his working life on becoming prime minister, he will fail to be elected to the office, no matter when he calls the election. This is what will truly haunt him all his life–Blair won three landslides for Labour but Brown hasn’t won a single one, as he was merely appointed to the job of prime minister when Blair resigned. And one thing that is completely different from Nixon’s gubernatorial defeat in 1962 is that this will be the political death knell for Brown. We really won’t have him to kick around any more, come next May.

Bruce Palling is a writer and journalist based in London. He was a correspondent in Indochina in the early 1970s and was the first South Asia correspondent for The Independent of London.